KJV-Onlyism for Kids?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 тра 2024
- Videos mentioned in the video:
▶ The video I'm answering: • VERSES ep.0 | Pilot | ...
▶ I discuss “hell” and “Hades”: • Why Do Textus Receptus...
▶ Dwayne Green and I discuss 1 Cor 1:18: • Does the NKJV teach us...
🎁 Help Mark Ward bring the Bible to the plow boy in his own English!
✅ / @markwardonwords
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.com/mlward
👏 Many, many thanks to the UA-cam channel members and Patreon supporters who make this work possible!
▶ UA-cam:
Larry Castle, Sarah Leslie, Christopher Scaparo, Drane Pipes, David H, Jesse and Leigh Davenport, Meghan Brown, Justin Bellars, Lynn Hartter, Alan Milnes, Rich Smith, Lynn Stewart, Matt Stidham, Karen Duncan, Gregory Brown, Brad Ullner, David Podesta, Frank Hartmann, Andrew Brady, Tricia Maddox Behncke, Caleb Richardson, PAClassic87 95, James Duly, Deep Dive Discipleship, Todd Bryant, M.A. Moreno, whubertx, Joel Richardson, Orlando Vergel Jr, OSchrock, Eric Couture, Bryon Self, Average Gun Guy, Brad Dixon, Derek Ralston, Brent Zenthoefer, Reid Ferguson, Dale Buchanan, James Goering, David Saxon, Travis Manhart, Josiah Dennis, judy couchman, Kimberly Miller, Jonathan Clemens, Robert Daniels, Tiny Bibles, ThatLittleBrownDog, Gregory Chase, Robert Gifford, GEN_Lee_Accepted, Lanny Faulkner, Benjamin Randolph
▶ PATREON:
Paul Gibson, gnomax, Nathan Hall, D. H. Wallenstein, Keith Martin, Beth Benoit, Cody Hughes, Arvid D, Frank Hartmann, Thomas Jacobs, David Stein, Andy B, Deborah Reinhardt, Desert Cross Tortoise Fox, Robert Daniels, Rick Erickson, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Caleb Farris, Jess English, Aaron Spence, John Day, Brent Karding, Steve McDowell, Adam Avaritt, James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, Matthew Lindquist, Luc + Eileen Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, Corey Henley, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Tyler Harrison, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, James D Leeper, Nate Patterson, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Miguel Lopez, CRB, Dean C Brown, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph
▶ BUY ME A COFFEE:
Stephen, Joshua, Cody, Evan, Robert, Joel, Brian, Michael, Stacey, Justin, Jason, Jimmy, Nathan, Kim, Carl, Tom, Zach, Frank, Jenna, DH, Robert, Papa D, Ben, Anirudh, John, Alan, Ben, Phil, Cody, Adam, Kayla, Sarah, Darlene, Caleb, Scott, Anonymous (18x)
My remarks on the video were not too unlike yours, but you were certainly more charitable. This video serves as further evidence that IFB doctrine is indeed threatened by the NKJV -- not because the NKJV contains major errors on matters of soteriology and eschatology, but because the modern IFB movement has adopted and defended its own theological errors on the basis of its poor comprehension of the KJV. Once you understand what the Bible says, you realize that their whole belief system is full of holes.
Plot twist...just moments after filming ended, the NKJV got up, dusted itself off, and fired 1st Corinthians 13 at the personified KJV..... The NKJV lovingly explained that it restored LOVE to the text of scripture, and it proceeded to quote William Tyndale's refutation of the use of "charity" as a proper translation of agape. This destroyed the entire KJV's argument, since one error destroys the whole argument......
As the NKJV walks away, it stops, turns to look over its shoulder, and says, who's the Catholic now?......
@@hayfieldhermit9657 😁
👍👍
Bro, why so hard against IFB? I don't really know your background. But if you don't like them, just don't go to their church. Is this a personal vendetta?
@@murrydixon5221 Throughout my adolescence, I was a member of a KJVO fundamentalist Baptist church that was very similar to an IFB. (It did have an overarching association, but it would be otherwise hard to distinguish from an IFB.) I've experienced how the KJV can be misread in support of interpretations that would leave the 1611 translators (let alone the original inspired authors) saying, "That is most certainly not what we meant!"
Now, it's a given that modern Baptists will generally not agree with Jacobean Anglicans on certain matters. When they translated 1 Peter 3.21, some of the translators likely took it to mean that baptism is properly a sacrament and not simply an ordinance. (See Article 27 of the Church of England's Articles of Religion.) That doesn't mean that everyone who uses the KJV has to agree with the translators, as this matter isn't dependent upon the meaning of English words and clauses, but of Greek words and clauses.
But disagreement with the translators is unacceptable when your interpretation is demonstrably a misunderstanding of the translation itself. If you'll forgive an absurd example, let's talk about a hypothetical KJVO named Joe. When Joe reads "firmament" and thinks that it sounds a lot like "ferment," you don't just say, "Well, it's fine that he thinks the sky is producing alcoholic beverages in Genesis." No, you tell Joe that he's certainly wrong. Now, if Joe is more concerned about his own ego than he is about understanding the Scriptures properly, he may waste time arguing that anyone who doesn't believe in a Young Earth Beer Sky is not a true Christian. Such people are incorrigible.
I grew up KJVO. I remember how the Preachers would explain difficult words and texts. Apparently, they were hovering above the rest of us by reinterpreting the words of the original translators.
That's the point, right? The Latin says what I say the Latin says. Prove me wrong!
Many KJV preachers and teachers I have been exposed to use the scriptures to interpret the scriptures.
I watched your conversation with Pastor Brett today about this topic - I really enjoyed it! Thanks to you both for being patient with one another, I really appreciated it.
I also watched the fuzzy KJV vs. NKJV video - I have to agree, wonderful animations but I personally love the NKJV and many other modern translations!
For example, the NLT has helped me understand the Word deeply - it's one of my favorite translations and so easy to read.
Honestly, I have a few KJVs, but the only KJV I can really understand well is the Jimmy Swaggart Expositors KJV. They very cleanly remove the 'ye's and 'thee's and update the archaic language without altering anything.
Thank you for your work on the channel, it's wonderful! God bless!
I must say I love Kjv. It's my primary Bible. It speaks to me. I love the way it words things, I love how easy I can remember it. I also cross reference with seven or eight other translations regularly. Personally I just love the difficulty in reading middle English because it makes me think deeper about the text. A lot of times I feel the older words mean more simply because they are less common. That's why in many verses I love the 1560 geneva translation. These older words make me think harder and more meaningfully about the text. But i would never claim it to be the only viable English version.
"I also cross reference with seven or eight other translations regularly"
Okay, so which translation is correct, or do you view as the "most" correct? For example, if you were to look at Song of Songs 5:10 which translation do you think is the most accurate in translation? I am just wondering what your trusted scholarship hierarchy would be.
@@casey1167 respectfully, why does it matter? They are all correct, there is no "most correct" scripture other than the autograph, and none of the alleged differences, additions, subtractions, or whatever, really seem to make or break the Bible's Gospel message, which is really what's supposed to be the most important thing, right? If I read the Roman Road in a tract, repent of my sins and believe in Jesus, and say the sinner's prayer and come to salvation, but the verses of Romans were in the ESV translation, would I not really have been saved for some reason? Or, if I read a tract in the KJV version, got saved, then decided to read the scriptures in the NKJV, would I somehow void my salvation or be in danger of losing it? Do you believe one can lose their salvation?
How *exactly* does having (or not having) a "perfect" English translation, affect you or other Christians or the message of the Gospel in any way? I'm really trying to comprehend because to me it seems so, pardon me, childish and ignorant and unspiritual, to believe that God can't preserve His words (the *substance*, the *meaning*) regardless of translation, so that anyone can read it.
If you were on a desert island with nothing, and God Almighty caused an NIV version of the Bible to wash ashore, would you refuse to read it?
The original language is correct. No single translation can ever completely reflect exactly what was in the original. Translation does not work that way. Read the KJV preface and you will see that the KJV translators recognized this truth. They recognized the need to keep updating as new manuscripts were discovered and as language changed.
God did preserve his truth for us, and we have more tools now than they had in 1611 to digest and study that truth. We are blessed by God's providence.
When I'm studying, if one word sticks out to me I usually go to my Hebrew English Greek interlinear Bible and then look up the word I'm confused about in greek or Hebrew.
Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day. I'm trusting in nothing but the blood of Jesus to pay for my sins to keep me out of hell. Just like accepting a plea bargain in court. Thank you LORD!
I have encountered a few KJV Only people who make the claim that if you were not saved from a King James Bible you were not saved. According to these people only the KJV contains the real gospel that you so clearly stated. King James Only people come in all flavors, some more extreme than others.
There are people who read words and simply see what they are reading with no understanding. There are those who read words and grasp their meaning and there are those who read not just the words and their meaning but see how they fit into and support the bigger picture. You, Mark Ward, are clearly the latter; however, you have the God given talent to be able to teach that knowledge to others and that, my friend, is like they say in the credit card commercial “priceless”!!!! May God richly bless you and your family!
Many thanks for your kind words!
I feel like it says something interesting about the psychology of the KJVO crowd that the gruff outlaw is the hero and the kind sheriff is the bad guy…
I noticed the same thing and wasn't sure what to make of it.
Never mind that the KJV is named after, well, a king!
(Next time: the KJV is Robin Hood, the NIV is the Sheriff of Nottingham, and the NASB is Prince John!)
@@MAMoreno No, if the KJV is Robin Hood, the NASB would be the wicked cardinal who covered for the sheriff.
That kids cartoon video is a sad illustration of causing unnecessary angst to youth that are just trying to enjoy their journey in Christianity.
Amen
Right, Dr. Pleasant!
What is the angst, exactly? That God's word is the final authority?
Personally, I feel as if having my faith grounded in truth of the sure Word of God, would cause me less angst, but maybe that’s just me.
Thank you for being a peacemaker. Each town is decidedly big enough for the two of them.
I should have used that line! This town IS big enough for the both of them!
Great video Mark. The claims by the KJV only crowd that various translations have some sort of Catholic influence down right laughable. I've lost count of how many times I've heard, "The NIV is Vatican approved". It's laughable to me because the KJV onlyists don't seem to realize the Greek texts that the KJV translators used were ultimately critical texts produced by the Catholic priest Desiderius Erasmus between 1516 and 1535. For his 1516 edition Erasmus was seeking Papal approval and endorsement so he dedicated it to Pope Leo X, literally making some of the texts that underlie the KJV New Testament "Vatican approved". I swear you can't make this stuff up.
False. The KJV was last English translation from what is known as the received text(textus receptus). All others starting with the revised version have influence from wescott and hort, along with false manuscripts that they now call “more accurate.” The received text was what was trusted and protected to pass down through the generations. Thankfully God has had his hand on the KJV Bible. That’s why it’s still here. You all lash out and try to tear it apart. But it keeps standing strong and is sold at a store near you everyday. It’s preserved and forever shall be.
From NA27: The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision.
KJV-onlysists that say the CT is Catholic read this last phrase as modifying "the text", or the decision to use the CT as a basis for translation, both of which are ungrammatical. In fact I was a bit concerned about this argument for a while until a yt video explained it's just saying Catholic Bibles are being translated from the NA text instead of the Vulgate.
There is a difference between the Catholic Church and the Jesuits. When people say Catholic in a pejorative sense what they mean is the Catholic church dominated by Jesuits. There are great Catholics out there: Erasmus, Tolkien, Chesterton to name a few. Many of the Reformers came out of the Catholic church.
To reiterate, Jesuits and the Vatican power structure are the problem today not your average Catholic person in the pews.
@@dustin7847 -- You completely missed John's point. Do you read your Bible so sloppily?
@@gregb6469 no I did not miss his point. I plainly said what he said is false. Just because someone says something is so, does not make it true. Thus the reason I said the KJV was translated from the received text. What had been handed down and trusted as pure since it was originally written. No catholic priest tainted that linage of scripture. They done everything in their power to keep it from the people, including murder. But Gods word lived on. As it does today. In the textus receptus. Or our KJV for English speaking people.
The translators weren’t KJV only. Psalms 19 indicates the word of God cannot simply be limited to any single translation. English has changed. The KJV went through several major revisions that added or removed words as correction of translation, not typographical errors or accidental mistakes.
How many more reasons do KJVOists need to be convinced? Except, they just can’t be convinced. If Jesus came back today and broke the news he’s not KJV only, they would label him as the antichrist. Not even kidding.
So, your logic is we accepted the 1611, 1629, 1637, 1762, 1769, 1900.... so why not the NKJV? This would also be a point to Dr. Ward... if KJVO was based on "re-inspiration" than why are we not flocking to a "Pure 1637" edition or something?
Outside of the Traditional Text vs. Critical Text, the issue is changes in translation. As much as Dr. Ward will say I am wrong, the copyright (FormTX) on each new Bible only covers the "new authorship" and when you have "new authorship" you will have conflicts in translation between version.
@@casey1167
I don't know where you heard that, but it isn't even remotely accurate to actual copyright law.
@@casey1167 The process of updating the archaic words and grammar alone would make up a significant amount of any legally necessary difference. On top of that, you have a group of competent scholars on the NKJV committee going back over the Hebrew and Greek to determine if certain words and idioms would be better translated in a different way, whether for the sake of improved accuracy or improved clarity. Additionally, there's a detailed textual apparatus included in the NKJV's footnotes identifying variant readings in the LXX, Vulgate, DSS, Nestle-Aland, Majority Text, and other sources. Surely all of that content together offers sufficient material to copyright.
The issue remains the same: if KJVOs would agree to offer begrudging support to the NKJV rather than throwing it under the bus alongside all the others, then it wouldn't be such a big deal for them to speak ill of the NIV. Instead, we get the Ruckman response: ol' Pete always seemed to speak especially poorly of the NASB and NKJV because he knew good and well that any "sensible" American fundamentalist could see that they were not promoting modernist interpretations of the Bible in the same way that the RSV was. It was necessary to drum up something wrong with them because the alternative was losing the ability to turn Bible translations into the basis for identity politics.
They knew it was the most perfect bible ever produced. And it still is
@@MAMoreno I am not stating the NKJV made changes for copyright purposes, but I would for translations subsequent. Modernization of the KJV to the NKJV was sufficient enough probably. But I don't know, Thomas-Nelson will not release the FormTX they used to get the copyright.
But let's assume the NKJV simple had no issues... would I switch to it? Frankly I would not and it is not because of some love and devotion to 1611 English... I simply don't trust it would not be revised. Think I am silly for saying so? Well, there were a lot with the NASB1995 that were pretty upset with the NASB2020 thus the LSB. What the KJV offers is assurance of no changes... whether they be good or bad....
When does your book come out? I'd want to pre-order it if possible. Thanks for the content.
I second this.
I'm not yet certain when it will come out. =| Maybe spring 2025? Maybe fall 2024?
@@markwardonwords I'm looking forward to it too, and I suspect quite a few people are as well. 🙂
I must’ve bought a dozen of your first book and given them out to family members whom I knew would benefit from finding a better way to live with understanding. I’m prepared to do the same again! Looking forward to it!
The only thing that could have made this video better is if you had done the entire thing in a Psalty costume.
ROFL!
Your work is crucial. If someone can’t afford your book I’ll make a donation.. no kidding
Can you provide a link to this cartoon video?
ua-cam.com/video/FaHALxNg_1E/v-deo.html
5:30 and following - 100%. 25 years ago I modernized the KJV on the fly as I read from the pulpit. Then someone gave me a NKJV. What a gift.
Amen! Love that last comment!
And I've put the link to the foam video in the description now-sorry about that!
Brother, I appreciate that you can at once be gracious and strive for peace and unity while also calling something "a lie straight from the pit of Belial." Truth. Keep up the good work.
Thank you. Pray for me!
And a minor correction: I said "falsehood straight from the pit of Belial." I don't think the maker of that video self-consciously told an untruth.
Fair distinction. Thank you.
I personally believe that he may be a dispesationalist, I don't know much about them, but I do know that they don't like "confusing" the Covenant with Israel with the New Testament. I have checked some other translations and found that the word can mean Covenant, Testament, or even "will". God bless brothers and sisters. ❤
I’m a dispensationalist and it doesn’t matter which word (covenant or Testament) Is translated. The Bible supports dispensationalism and it doesn’t need to be a king James version to do so. The anti-dispensation are almost as absurd as the KJV onlyists. I have friends that are covenant theology and even post millennial and I don’t go around bad mouthing them but the anti-dispensationalism seen today has got to be a case of people believing nonsense as stupid as KJV Onlyism and repeating it, not knowing how utterly stupid they sound. You need to grow up.
While the video you're responding to is indeed well-done, I'm ... confused by the messaging. Is portraying the KJV as a jaded, joyless sower of fear and death supposed to help the cause?
A good way of putting it.
~7:00 If you intended to have text on the screen here, I only see the last little bit by your right shoulder. The rest can't be seen at all. Good video, in any case.
Also, is it possible that you could make a "The NLT is the best bible translation (for certain people in certain situations)" video? I've used it myself off and on, but I'm still determining where it fits (if at all) with the other translations I use.
I can't think of any situation where the NLT would be the "best". It's not a horrible translation, but there are certainly much better translations that are in good, readable modern English. For example, if a person finds the ESV too difficult to read, the NLT isn't going to help - that person needs some remedial English training.
@@Packhorse-bh8qn I won't defend its flaws as a translation (I take issue with its pre-interpretation of scripture for example, even if I might agree with it in a few places), but there are situations where the NLT could still be used.
(1) It could be used for people who speak English as a second (or third) language, the kinds of people who wouldn't have terms such as "sanctification", "atonement", and other "biblish" terms in their lexicon.
(2) It could also potentially be used when sharing the gospel with someone who is elderly or otherwise near the end of their long lives (case in point: I read the NKJV to my grandmother who has mentally declined, and it is clear she doesn't fully understand what she's hearing even if she claims otherwise, but she has turned down requests to change to an easier translation despite that).
(3) This is where I disagree with you. First, the NLT is rated at an estimated 6th grade reading level, where as the ESV and (just for comparison) the NASB are rated much higher, toward the end of high school (estimated 10th and 11th grade respectively). Quite the gap if you ask me. Second, it could be used for illiterate people IF (note the caps) someone else spoke it out loud to them, as opposed to them trying to read it themselves. Just because they might be bad at reading doesn't necessarily mean that their language comprehension would be just as bad (although those types of people do exist).
(4) It could possibly be used if you have children and you want to get them into the faith as young as can be managed (for example, between ages 7 and 10). You couldn't pull this off (at least not cleanly) with the ESV and NASB, and you could just maybe just barely get by with either the NKJV or CSB. With the NLT, you would have a much better chance at teaching the gospel to children, while allowing them the opportunity to study further at a later point in time with the any of the aforementioned translations.
(5) You could possibly use the NLT if you feel "stuck", using it as a 3rd opinion when even the CSB, NIV, or NET don't cut it. This may not work 100% of the time, but I've found that when it does work, it works really well.
God be with you.
@@Patrikstar24 "but there are situations where the NLT could still be used. "
Of course there are many places where it could be USED.
I just can't think of any place where it would be the best choice.
For a physical copy to have on hand... what is a good bible dictionary to purchase? There are so many out there.
Honestly I would get a couple bibles. Nkjv is great but I would also get an amplified bible at least because it gives clues as the what greek and hebrew meant where English is simpler. Esv is great for study, oration and quotation. Make sure that whatever bible you get or start with is a good study bible. Not even for interpretation but just for details about the books before you read them. You get dates and authorship about each book that are very useful for study.
Boy… I don't use Bible dictionaries much. I don't have a good recommendation! =|
Perhaps you should consider which dictionary would pair best with your preferred study translation. For instance, you'd be right to guess that Zondervan's Illustrated Bible Dictionary is based on the NIV, Nelson's on the NKJV, and Holman's on the HCSB (though they will often cite other versions, too).
Thank You Mark, a valent effort In persuading viewers to see the dangers in these strict beliefs of the singular English translation. I just hope they would understand.
Anybody who makes a difference between covenant and testament and comes up with theories as to why each one is used in the new testament throws a red flag for me.
The marginal notes of the kjv throughout hebrews says "or testament" whenever the passage says covenant, and says "or covenant" whenever the passage says testament.
Older bible translations like tyndale uses testament a few times in hebrews were the KJV uses covenant, no conspiracy there.
In general covenant seems to be more general than testament, but you can rightfully call the old covenant the old testament, and the new testament the new covenant.
From what i know about some IFB and KJV onlyists is they dont like calling this the new covenant because some are dispensationalists and think this is an age of grace, not the new covenant, the new covenant is specifically for Israel.. .therefore they stay away from the word.
Good point about the margin! I should have thought to check that!
Just watched for the second time. When will your new book be available? Very excited 😊
Not totally sure! Maybe spring 2025, maybe fall 2024?
Sad to hide the truth and make up things. Ive read the nkjv for years everyday and still believe the same things i always have.
RIGHT!
Ooo!! Excited about your new book!
Did not the Lord Jesus command us to translate the gospel in the contemporary tongue of the hearer in the Great commission?
Or was it Christ's intention for us to teach them Greek and Hebrew then give them the Bible?
I actually have heard the "Linen yarn" vs "Kevah" thing before, incidentally in the very first KJV-Only article I ever read (an article from Watchmen Bible Study Group, the website of which actually doesn't exist anymore, which I'm glad of because digging deeper actually revealed tons of heresy; they were supporters of Shepherd's Chapel and believed most of the same things taught there. Incidentally, this was my introduction to Shepherd's Chapel as well).
The cartoon thing you're responding to sort of reminds me of a project I started about five years ago and then abandoned. It was a fake documentary with very crude animation which I planned on calling "KJV-Only: A True Story." The title was intended as an obvious joke, because the entire movie was intended to be a parody. I had an entire script (which would have made a nearly two-hour movie) as well as some scenes animated, but ended up dropping the project because it just didn't feel right. Some of the humor bordered on outright crude, there was shock value violence, and I outright villainized every single KJV-Onlyist portrayed. I decided in the end that finishing and releasing such a film was just offending people for the sake of offending people. Though I haven't thought of it much since then, I sometimes think about reviving the project with a vastly re-written script that tones down the offensive content and portrays the KJV-Only position more fairly while still retaining the humorous tone I was going for. But so far I haven't picked it up again.
Thank you, Mark, for another great video.
When does this new book of yours come out?
Fall of 2024 or spring of 2025, I believe!
Thank you Mark.
Brilliant! Thank you.
I watched the whole animation. The "geniune" barefoot KJV has a less than gracious "holier than thou" personality, while the "yellow" befuddled NKJV is "dressed up" in pretentious white attire with white boots. The bar room setting is inappropriate for kids. All of it is just "off." The Holy Spirit is obviously nowhere to be found in this production! It has Ruckman, Chick, and Riplinger written all over it! Thanks for the warning. Well spoken as always!🙏📖😊FYI: I prefer the Byzantine text stream, with the NKJV as my primary Bible in tandem with the KJV (both the 1611 and the 1769 Blayney). Especially when studying the Psalms I also consult the WEB, ABP, CSB, NET, BSB, LEB, BDS, and the NETS & Lexham LXX translations. The new JPS & Artscroll Psalms are also most helpful.
Didn't Riplinger claim that God should be co-credited along with herself, as the author of her book?
@@hayfieldhermit9657 Didn't Riplinger claim that God should be co-credited along with herself, as the author of her book?"
Not exactly in those words. She claimed that God "gave her" the acrostic algebra that "proved" the NIV is Satanic. I don't remember her wording exactly, but it was very much intended to convey that, because God "gave her" this magical algebra, that disagreeing with her was disagreeing with God.
Mark, I am so happy to hear you defend the wonderful NKJV. (I knew you had it in you!)
Thanks sir for your great concern and compassion for us as Bible readers.
My pleasure!
My church favors NKJV and the RSV. It is an interesting ride though. lol. I used to love the NASB. Now I am trying out the NASB2020 for home study. I am impressed with the NIV2011, and next I will check out the NRSVue.. so many to try out and so little time! 😇
Oh dear! I fear that you English speaking brothers are idolising the Kjv or is it now Kjb? It is merely an old English translation and a beautiful one too! But to state that its the only true Word of God makes me draw a huge question mark over you??? What about the translations into other languages? So the translation into my language (Afrikaans/South Africa) is not the Word of God? Only Kjv/Kjb??? Plese brothers and sisters you are getting distracted in a sly way of the enemy to keep you busy with the word and not The Word!!! Wake up! The enemy is busy diving and ruling you! Read and study the scriptures. Read the translation you understand best, be it Kjv, Esv, Nasb. As an Afrikaans speaking person the Kjv is a bit difficult. So I use Kjv, Nkjv or Esv and compare. It is just translations into English out of the origional languages.
Remember the letter is dead! The Holy Spirit is bringing it to live and revelation!
It’s not the language, Brother it’s the where it came from. Is it the received text or is it Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Other languages can be translated from the received text. The claim is the KJV is the word of God as far as the English translation goes. At least that’s how it is for me.
It’s not the language, Brother it’s the where it came from. Is it the received text or is it Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Other languages can be translated from the received text. The claim is the KJV is the word of God as far as the English translation goes. At least that’s how it is for me.
Thank you, Brother Mark 🌹⭐🌹.Great video.
'Utter and complete foolishness' pretty much sums it up, sadly.
The description on the original KJVpictures video says 'the NKJV...is actually an Alexandrian translation disguised as a Textus Receptus'. That is an egregious falsehood.
Agreed. So sad!
Wescott and Hort. Significant influence on the NKJV. Along with the “more accurate manuscripts” used in their findings. Anyone who says otherwise is just willfully ignorant
I think KJVO is leading us into their hall of mirrors!🤔🤔🤔😊🙏📖
Wouldn't be the only lie pushed by KJV-onlyism
Any false teaching is bad, but it becomes truly heartbreaking when it's aimed at children.
I know you are saddle weary but thanks for this video.
We have a church nearby that use to have a sign that read “fight truth decay study the King James Bible “
Now at that time I was unaware of the teaching of KJB onlyism and thought to myself that it was a conservative view to hold .
Thank you, saw this yesterday and wanted to point it out to you. It’s really well done, but in error.
Keep it up Mark. Thanks for another one.
I suspect the 6th point is given from a dispensationalist perspective where the Jews apparently are living under a covenant in the tribulation which is made to differ from the present New Testament of grace for the Gentiles. I do believe there is a difference between a covenant and a testament but not with a hyper dispensational overlay.
Your most helpful and constructive comment, Matthew! Thank you for this. That does help.
Thanks Mark!🙂
I read the covenant vs. testament article. In short, the author distinguishes between the "new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah" in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 (which is quoting Jeremiah) and the New Testament of Hebrews 9. I don't see how this is exegetically plausible in Hebrews, but I haven't done my homework yet either. At any rate, Lotan (author of the article) thinks the new covenant is a promise instantaneously save all ethnic Israelites by miraculous knowledge without them ever hearing the Gospel. He seems to merely assume that any other interpretation of this passage is either postmillennial (the term used in the video) or amillennial (the term used in the article).
Helpful.
144k: Jews that don't accept Christ aren't saved - a remnant will remain, young (non messianic) children may be saved via rapture before being old enough to be held accountable (12k X 12k "undefiled by women" means children to me, not virgins). Some adults flee when the seismic events tear up the local topography (through a split and relocated mountain and valley path), so some Jewish adults are a surviving remnant but not necessarily saved either. I don't get the idolization of the Jews, Christians that do that *and don't convert* don't actually believe in either, and should stop muddying the living waters for the rest of us. Jews were used to establish a legacy race and a bloodline to breed the messiah, their time and purpose has passed, the entire point was establishing Jesus not the Jews.
@@nobodyspecial1852 I think Lotan is saying that God will miraculously impart knowledge of the Gospel to every Jewish person and they will all instantly receive Christ at some future time. I don't agree with him. I'm simply attempting to summarize the content of the article as Dr. Ward requested.
Holy moly I just watched the video it’s nuts
Whoever did the video, or at least answers comments for it, answers points against his "facts" with as much duck and weave as a Jehovah's Witness. I said in my comment if the NKJV differed from the KJV the standard shoud be the texts used to translate them--not justvassume the KJV is correct añd the NKJV is wrong. His answer immediately jumped into Alexandrian vs TR, Egypt is bad, and totally tried to misdirect the entire discussion away from my point to something so far from it that he would not have to address my point. Same tactics my JW sister and husband use.
Whoever answered the comments almost certainly lacks the ability to see when the NKJV differs from the KJV because of Hebrew and Greek or because of English translation philosophy/choices. =(
@@markwardonwords Agreed. They use a smoke screen to deflect and avoid the topic.
@@Nick-wn1xw They just accused me of a fallacy. They implied the NKJV is wrong for translating "LORD" instead of "Jehovah" in Exodus, when God said the people had not known him by that name.
So I pointed out that in Isaiah 42:8 the KJV quotes God saying "I am the LORD: that is my name:" and the Reina Valera translates his name Jehovah there. So I simply compared the KJV to the Reina Valera just as he compared the KJV to the NKJV in the same sort of situation.....and guess what?....I'm wrong. I'm an idiot who just can't understand logic... After this interaction with that content creator, I have an absolute zero respect for them. If they can't admit I presented an equal situation that presents the Reina Valera as superior, using their own logic, then they are simply going to claim victory no matter what. It's pointless to say anything to someone like that.
The accusation that I have heard many times is that these new translations are of Satan...............in reading these new translations would Satan put out such things?
All one has to do is read something like Romans (chapters 4-6 particularly) in the ESV, NIV, NKJV, NASB, etc. If they are from Satan, then he did a pretty crummy job there.
@@TheDoctor394 I love the accusation that those versions leave verses "out".....and they are using an English Translation from 1611 as their basis!
"Sons of Belial" is clearly an idiom, probably roughly equivalent to what Rooster Cogburn called the bad guys in his famous last gun battle. "Fill yer hands, you sons of ---------"
It's far more pithy and emotional than merely, 'worthless person". It would be a better translation *_in that sense_* .
But only if the reader understands it, which is open to question.
Probably the best course is to put the "sons of Belial" in a note, explaining what it means, OR vice versa. Put it in the text, and explain it in a note.
But it would be a shame to completely lose the insulting *_punch_* of the idiom.
I totally agree. Bible translators have such a hard job!
I don't know why, but whenever I listen to a KJV only video, I get the feeling I'm listening to a Pharisee from 2000 years ago. Mark's video have brought me peace of mind with respect to the translations I use in personal study.
What the hades?
Mark, I am going to say that I can appreciate your argument this time. On two things: when you said "*can* referring to translation. When someone says "*better* translated as" or "the *best* manuscripts say". That's what is offensive for me personally.
The second thing I want to commend you on is your use of the Matthew's Bible. You have come a long way from "Authorized". The translations from that era are equally as valuable as the King James version.
The NKJV does tip its hat as to what it thinks are the "best" manuscripts. On Mark 16.9-20, it says, "Vv. 9-20 are bracketed in NU as not in the original text. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other mss. of Mark contain them." That comment subtly expresses the committee's low opinion of the two codices and their general trust of the majority readings.
But sometimes the NKJV even sticks up for readings with little support in Greek. For instance, it says of Acts 8.37, "NU, M omit v. 37. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition." The translators want readers to be fully aware that there is a strong textual tradition behind it, even if that tradition is primarily Latin rather than Greek.
(The NKJV is less convinced of 1 John 5.7, but even Erasmus wasn't fully sold on that verse. Tyndale and Coverdale also chose to place it in parentheses sometimes.)
@@MAMoreno I don't want to bash the NKJV too much. But I would argue that Thomas Nelson does not seem to know its target audience for that translation very well. Could be wrong but I suspect that a majority of the people who read the NKJV would want an updated KJV essentially not something full of NU. The common refrain is the average reader is not equipped to do Textual Criticism but our Bibles are full of them. So how about just a neutral option? I know you mentioned a reader's edition before but you don't get all the bells and whistles that many people have come to expect. You know lay flat line match comfort print etc. Thomas Nelson is kind of bad in keeping their stuff in print also.
MEV has almost vanished. WEB doesn't have much. Our options are pretty limited on this side except for the KJV or NKJV. If Bible Hub would release a print of the Majority Standard Bible I would be all over that.
Could be in the minority but I believe the Vulgate has value.
I'm postmil and I use the NASB, LSB and ESV most often. But I must say, as a Presbyterian I get a little excited at the word "covenant" haha.
Watch out KJVO. We're coming for you, and by proxy, your kids. (With a little bit less water no doubt)
Ha! You gut a chuckle out of me.
Interestingly, the KJV mirrors closely the Catholic Douay-Rheims translation at 1 Corinthians 1:18 as the DR has: "For the word of the cross, to them indeed that perish, is foolishness; but to them that are saved, that is, to us, it is the power of God." According to conspiratorial thinking, it is the KJV translators and the producers of the children's video that are pushing a "Popish" translation. Further, it is gross and upsetting that supposed people of God like this animator are using children to carry on the bigotry of the past.
The simpler explanation in this case is that the English language didn't allow for anyone to say "us which are being saved" when these translations were being made. It would be about 200 years before the "passive progressive" really caught on in our tongue, just in time for "are being saved" to be introduced in the 1881 Revised Version. (The American Standard Version went back to "are saved" in 1901, but that was a deliberate choice on the American scholars' part and not just a happenstance caused by the limitations of Elizabethan English.)
Art Farstad would approve of this video
The hilarious irony is that Art Farstad had far more in common with an independent fundamentalist Baptist than someone like Lancelot Andrewes did, but the IFBs would rather trust Andrewes with their Bible.
Excellent point, MAMoreno.
Oh, this is nothing. Try to read "Which Version is the Bible?" by Floyd Nolen Jones. I can only read a few pages at a time due to the insanity of it. A response video to it would actually be nice
I've wondered if I should go after his viewpoint. Haven't read anything by him yet; I've only listened to a talk or two.
@@markwardonwords I am by no means a Biblical scholar, but his book is insane even to me, and my fiancés parents used this book as a way to get them into KJV onlyism. I have about 100 notes on the book in just about 50 pages, and it's a painstaking process because it takes so long to read, since I have to take breaks and I can't read too much at one time. It's too hard
Unless a Mark Ward response video would add buzz to a bad book better left in obscurity.
I understand the feeling. I read a book by a former vice president or something like that at the Dean Burgon society. I couldn't believe that someone with that sort of pedigree would call the KJV a translation of the "majority text". It's obviously not a majority text translation. It's TR... Basically it was stopping multiple times per page to shake my head and wonder....
why is it OK for kjv onlyists to just make stuff up out of thin air and declare it absolutely authoratative.... I'm actually amazed at how imaginative KJV onlyists can be when you ask them a question that either they can't answer or they can't answer truthfully. They have such imagination to invent things on the spur of the moment and then somehow make those imaginations reality.....
Thank you mark,the KJV also says those who endure to the end shall be saved future tense,and he said he will be doing more videos hope you cover those as well
Excellent point!
Who created or produced this KJV only for kids video? Who is behind it?
Best I can tell: a talented individual guy who has worked in animation for a good while.
@@markwardonwords Thank you. As the lead elder in my church I had to let our interim (temporary) pastor go when I learned he was KJO. I had a good number of discussions with him and carefully explained how he is wrong. It was an interesting experience as his evidence was so very shallow. We are a King James Preferred congregation. After he left I gave a three-part series of sermons addressing why King James Only is a very flawed position. When I teach or preach I often use Greek and Hebrew word studies books to expand on specific words in the King James. I know just enough Greek to be able to use language study tools.
@@normchristopherson5799 Wow! I have never heard of someone who is KJV Preferred but who has the clarity to see that KJV-Onlyism really is different. I applaud you for that! I hope my channel can be (or has been?) a help to you!
@@markwardonwords Mark, you and James White are two of my solid resources. Mark, you are providing a highly valued service. I am discovering that the KJO movement is somewhat on the increase in my area. There are many small churches in need of a pastor and that seems to be how young KJO men sneak into the pulpit and "convert" the church to KJO. Yes, I am King James Preferred but clearly not KJO. We prefer the King James for it's beauty, splendor and grand history. We also want everyone looking at the same version during the message. I also like the ESV but love my Greek/English interlinear.
@@normchristopherson5799 I don't know your former interim pastor, so I'm not accusing him of being this way, but in my experience, KJV only people tend to be very slow to admit error or fault in other areas outside of their KJV only position.
It seems like their Supreme confidence in their 1769 revision of their revision sort of bleeds into everything else, and they become super dogmatic on everything or nearly everything to an extent that I have seen it be basically impossible to teach them anything or see them make a change to anything even when a change is needed.
I have used the KJV my entire life. I have memorized all of my scripture from it. I appreciate it. But too often I find KJV onlyists to have a real problem with admitting it when they are wrong. And because of that, I have a real bad taste in my mouth from KJV onlyism.
Pretty sure the 1 Cor 1:18 objection comes from some free grace people that think if you believe sanctification always follows justification you are teaching works. And this is why you get people like Steven Anderson accusing people reading modern translations of being unsaved.
Considering that the NKJV committee was filled with Free Grace people, this objection is greatly ironic.
@@MAMorenoWell the GES ended up going the direction that denied 1 Cor 1:18 is talking about the gospel so...
I apologize, I answered my own question... Thanks 😊
hang on a sec, hebrew certainly has a definite article and the article ה on העלמה in isaiah 7:14 does indeed make it definite.
What a terrible video for kids. Thank you Mark for giving your thoughts on it, you did a great job.
Much appreciated!
I'm pretty sure there are places in the KJV where testament was used in the text but covenant was supplied as an alternative in the notes. Those pesky notes in the 1611! Anyway, it is sad to see kids being led to see the devil's work where godly Christians are striving to make plain the words of God to men. I still pray for many more opened hearts and minds on this issue.
As always, thanks for the informative video, Mark! ❤ For those of us who believe in a legit conspiracy, some shallow KJV-only talking points like the ones used in this video seem counterproductive in exposing Belial. God bless!
1. Dr. Ward, who else but you is so equipped to carry this particular linguistic cross?
2. After watching VERSES ep.0 | Pilot | KJV vs. NKJV, I came away with the perception that it was laden with Dispensationalism, i.e., premillenial eschatology.
3. The foam author's persona during the last few minutes hinted that future installments would go into greater end times detail, particularly when it showed a Catholic cardinal puppet on the screen while announcing "and as this show continues, we will start to see that mystery religion make itself known:..." (7:57-8:03)
4. Therefore, I would expect the lead foam character to reveal himself as KJVO-SRB (King James Version Only, Scofield Reference Bible).
5. If so, the cartoon series will then deviate away from translation issues, thereby providing you a respite, perhaps permanently.
Quite possibly I will be off the hook! And thank you for the kind word! It is a cross, and I'm not making light of the cross, or of it.
ua-cam.com/video/avG0piVeYiQ/v-deo.htmlsi=rX-O6EWC2-qRduTB
Try this and other video's on this channel, hopefully it'll help explain why people feel the way they do regarding the KJV.
Welcome to level 3 KJV onlyism. Level 1 was using the KJV as their only Bible. Level 2 was claiming flawless translation like the Septuagint people.....level 3 is personifying the KJV.....level 4......the personified KJV receives sainthood, and they direct prayers towards it.....
I wish this struck me as completely ridiculous.
@@markwardonwords I know. I also, never thought I would see a talking KJV walk into a bar and order a drink.
It's clearly a cartoon don't read that much into it.
You are using the same argument as the Jews did against Jesus.
"..God appeared in the flesh,.."1 Timothy 3:16
@@murrydixon5221 How am I like the Jews?
@@hayfieldhermit9657 You are talking about people worshipping the KJV bible. No one is doing that. But when God was manifest in the flesh, the Jews said that His followers were being idolatrous as you are now.
As satire, I thought this cartoon was hilarious
Out of everyone here (including myself), I think that you have the best take on it.
Did you hear the one about the personified King James Bible that walked into the saloon and ordered a drink?...... Nevermind, im stopping right there.
Denying the validity of conspiratorial thinking is as bad as thinking everything is the result of conspiracy. Around 10:00 you say conspiracy when you mean “esoteric” or “occult” i.e. hidden.
I'm not saying there are no conspiracies, if that's what you mean! They do exist!
Mark is giving KJVO's the benefit of the doubt by calling them brothers, some would not go that far. Like Prots write off Roman Catholics, many Prots are wrote off as fake Christians.
I went to a KJV-Only Christian school. They were true Christians, gracious and sincere people that I still know and love. I choose to view everyone in the KJVO world, for as long as I can, as being like them.
Whatever version a child reads it most likely reads it because that’s the version the parent provided. It’s not about the argument itself. It’s about how wrong it is to circumvent a parent. When I was in the sixth grade (1974) my parents switched me from the KJV to the NASB. Right or wrong that was their sovereign right as parents and I don’t remember hearing peep from the church.
As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I often conduct bible studies with various people. One I presently conduct a bible study with is with a person who wishes to use the New KJV. In doing so, I appreciate how much clearer the NKJV is compared with the original KJV I was born and raised with. We enjoy using the New KJV.
The 1950 New World Translation always used “hades” when it appeared in the Greek, but more and more people over the decades (from 1973, when I first started using the NWT at the doors) didn’t have any idea what hades meant. Thus, wisely, the 2013 edition of the NWT uses ‘grave’ with hades in the footnote.
NWT typically translates “belial” as worthless or even wicked, depending on context. Although 2 Cor. 6:15, the NWT does use ‘belial.’
1 Cor 1:18 “who are being saved.” Eph 2:8 NWT has “you have been saved.” Both match the NKJV
Mark, at the 6:57 timeline a white word partially shows up on your shirt, but we can’t read the complete word.
If you are a JW how to you deal with Christ not being Diving and not dying on a cross?
@@kdeh21803 Thank you for your respectable question. I am being as kindly as possible myself. We see "divine" under a different definition from "God." We certainly believe Jesus is 'divine.' He is our Savior, redeemer and source of grace for everlasting life. We believe that Jesus is God's only begotten Son (John 3:16) Firstborn of all creation, Col 1:15 and the beginning of the creation of God (Rev 3:14). Where we differ is believing Jesus is part of a trinity - "God the son" - an expression not found in the bible. We also believe Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected on the third day. Thus said, we indeed, deal quite well with these things.
You see that is some of the problem you redefine terms to snooker people...... The Trinity is a big issue..... If you do not believe in that then that is part of the problem
@@kdeh21803 But what are we redefining?
@@19king14you are the one who said we define it differently...... You redefine Devine.
I love this cartoon, it's great to see quality content coming from my crowd!
And to reply to Mark's quote of 1 Cor. 14:9, I submit to you the REST of 1 Cor. 14:
"How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you... hath an interpretation? If any man speak in an unknown tongue... let *ONE* interpret... For God is not the author of confusion..."
Keep up the great work, Lotan @KJVpictures! Multiple language interpretations cause confusion, not clarity. Keep on "shooting em down!"
100% disagree
The KJV is the only one causing confusion here.
"Study" means to be diligent in 1611 for example.
And one interpreter? The KJV had nearly 50. So it must not be applicable to your false interpretation
@@Wesley-KJV-Ruckmanite I am not seeing the conflict here.... regardless of how you want to interpret "Study" here, it is the same thing. If you are "diligent" that which you are ultimately being "diligent" with is the scriptures. To say "study" is an archaic translation does not change the meaning of the passage.
@Wesley-KJV-Ruckmanite
Annnnnnd I now see the problem
Repent of *your* idolatry, Jesus is the word, not your KJ(*V*) of the scriptures.
And that foreign word means to be diligent (just like study meant in 1611)
@casey1167 it does change the meaning
To just study us to be diligent in gaining information. To "be diligent" means to be diligent in all your life.
@@ozrithclay6921 yep, not really seeing the difference in context.
One of my favorite videos out there. The KJV is the perfect word of God and has been the only authorized bible since 1611.
The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on UA-cam for help reading the KJV! ua-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
You do know that by "authorized," they mean officially appointed for use in the Church of England by the monarch, right? So if you're not an Anglican, this royal "authorization" is irrelevant: you don't consider the king of England to be the head of your church, so his authority over your congregation's official pulpit Bible is nonexistent (unless he has you arrested for your non-Anglican worship, of course; King James wasn't exactly a fan of religious dissenters such as the Baptists). You might as well be arguing that the Vulgate is the only authorized Bible, citing the Council of Trent.
Not a native English speaker, but can understand KJV… I always wonder there are many literature books that haven’t been translated to easy version (either it’s in English or any other language) but why Bible must be.. can people put a little effort to understand KJV..!
The KJV is an excellent translation-but it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on UA-cam for help reading the KJV! ua-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
batman, do you speak English as your primary language now?
The 54 translators of the KJV took 7 years to work on perfecting the English translation as preserved through the mighty translation work of people like William Tyndale who died for his daring to translate this into the vulgar, or common tongue
The KJV translators were directed to only change the wording of the previous Bishop's Bible where there were mistakes, building on the work of Tyndale and the translators of the Geneva Bible
I believe that the work of the Trinitarian Bible Society, for example, in translating ONLY from the textus receptus into every foreign language is invaluable, why should those people on Earth who cannot speak English be denied from God's word?!
Contrast this with the 'critical text' of 1881 by Westcott and Hort, two apostate revisionists who denied the fundamentals of Christianity, were Romanist and believed in Darwin's Theory of Evolution!
The choice is clear, any so called 'Bible' version which is based on this 'critical' text source (mainly the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) is very suspect
For me, as a simple linguist of several years' experience, any 'Bible' version which fails to differentiate between second person singular (thee) and second person plural (ye), as evidenced in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, is deliberately adding confusion to God's word, for example John 3:7 “Marvel not that I said unto thee (Nicodemus), Ye (all of you, everyone) must be born again.”
Totally lost in ALL modern 'Bible' versions!
QED!
What you have said about Westcott and Hort is simply not true, and Christians must speak truth. Check out the second series of videos at textualconfidence.com.
And as to thee vs. ye-there is truth in what you say, but check out kjbstudyproject.com. That distinction is NOT totally lost in all modern versions, and I have argued that it is lost on KJV readers.
And, my friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
@@markwardonwords thank you for your comprehensive reply
However, I agree to disagree on Westcott and Hort
Here were 2 men who misled the translation committee - I strongly recommend that you read articles by Dean Burgeon who called them out for their surreptitious undermining of the translation committee ambushing them with the 2 corrupt texts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
These disagree with EACH OTHER over 3,000 in the Gospels ALONE
1 John 5:7 to 8 is the best example of the utterly hacked Greek text where they didn't even try to hide the abuse of Greek grammar (e.g. plural masculine articles (oi) not matching 3 singular neuter nouns (to))
Sorry, but I prefer the majority text, the textus receptus of over 5,000 manuscripts translated faithfully by people like William Tyndale who died for the faith
Thank you for agreeing with the distinction between second person singular and second person plural, although very few modern Bibles include this
The NKJV is a dangerous translation as it is nowhere near as obviously bad as the JW NWT or the NIV, yet it is peppered with mistakes (Acts 12:4 regarding 'Easter' for example, please look at Numbers 28:16 to 17 regarding Passover)
Herod was a pagan so highly unlikely that he was observing the Jewish festival of Passover which would have had to have taken place a year later as they were in the festival, or days, of unleavened bread occurring AFTER Passover
I seriously object to your statement that these new versions translate into "intelligible contemporary English"
Look how 'difficult' 1 John 5:12 is in the KJV
“He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.”
Compare this with the MEV;
"Whoever has the Son has life, and whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life."
2 words have been changed from 1 syllable to
Whilst the MEV doesn't do this, many of the modern versions omit key words, such as "of Christ" (Romans 1:16), "Lord" (Luke 23:42), "through his blood" (Colossians 1:14), and butcherf 1 John 5:7 to 8
Obviously this causes confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33)
Let's exercise some logic here; all 'Bible' versions differ from each other
Therefore they cannot all be true
Logically they are either all in error or only one is true
I'm going with the tried and tested KJV and I make myself subject to the perfect, inerrant word of God
You are either a Bible believer OR a Bible corrector, choosing a Bible version which suits you making the word of God under your charge, or will you make yourself under the word of God?
@@markwardonwords plus a few afterthoughts
Who has copyright over the KJV?
The KJV is in the public domain - it is THE word of God which is NOT copyrighted by man
The MEV is Copyright © 2014 by Military Bible Association.
The NKJV is Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. (who also have contributed to the Satanic Bible!)
Why do so many people object to the KJV?
Why do other Bible 'versions' only ever compare themselves with the KJV and not with each other?
My second language is Russian and I have a Russian Synodal Text Bible from the TBS
This is translated from the majority text, the textus receptus and it gives me a really good feel for the depth of the English language given to us in the KJV, especially as it doesn't use anywhere near the same number of words and is easier to carry!
@@PhysicsTom2004 Please answer my comment; show you're listening, and then I will interact with further comments.
@@markwardonwords actually I did but clearly you didn't read my comprehensive replies, do svidaniya!
I yearn for an "Acts 2 Church." Satan is delighting in this deception and unnecessary division.
What’s the old saying🤔” If it ain’t broke DON’T fix it”
The KJV ain't broke, brother-it's an excellent translation. But English has changed (not broken), and we don't understand the KJV as well as its original readers did.
@Sargassum If only it were that simple, my friend! The problem-among others-is that many people out there don't realize how often they're misunderstanding their KJVs. =(
@@markwardonwords Well.... would disagree a bit... there are words in the KJV were archaic a the time, I think "besom" in Isaiah 14:23?
When reading the Bible with my 7 year olds... all this sort of vanishes because we have to define a lot of words any way.
@@casey1167 We have to define a lot of words anyway, so we might as well leave ourselves in a situation where we have to define even more of them? How does that make sense, my friend? And do you want your seven year olds to some day read the Bible on their own?
@@markwardonwords Dr. Ward, your point has validity when considering uneducated (for lack of a better term) in understanding the KJV, but for kids brought up with it, I don't see an issue. It just becomes part of their vocabulary.
For example, my first graders have had to learn the "Catechism for Young Children" for school... which includes the words:
conformity
transgression
wrath
regeneration
covenant
atonement
justification
sanctification
repent
sacraments
interceding
etc....
I would have to look up each of these words if seeing them for the first time, and I am not 7.
The kids have had to identify part of a sentence.... is telling them "ye" is plural and "Thee" is singular really that much of an effort?
Frankly, the NKJV would be a no brainer with a revision fixing the areas KJV people have issues with (place with change in meaning, for example Gen 1:1, 1 Thess 5:22), but I doubt that will ever happen.
But from a Traditional Text standpoint, we are stuck with the KJV, archaic words and all.
Tell us about all the omissions
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
Not a single verse from the KJV is omitted in the NKJV.
Oh, wait: I take that back. The NKJV does omit all the verses from the Apocrypha. You see, the Anglican Church that made the KJV uses the Apocrypha as part of its public and private worship. In fact, the front matter of the early KJV printings told you exactly which days to read books like Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. But most translators on the NKJV committee weren't part of a church that uses the Apocrypha, but rather came from conservative, low church traditions. (In fact, a number of them were Baptists, who likely would have been imprisoned for their beliefs during the reign of King James!)
@johnneufeld6019 "Tell us about all the omissions"
Tell us about all the extra verses in the KJV that were clearly not in the original manuscripts, as they don't show up in any manuscript for a thousand years after the originals were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Just to add a separate thread here regarding the main 'Bible' versions discussed.
I would be extremely grateful if anyone could justify the following changes from the KJV, into the NKJV and MEV (clearly the latter two are the preferred 'versions' here)
Firstly, for Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heaven (hashamayim) and the earth." (KJV)
Both Elohim and hashamayim are singular plural nouns, e.g. one bunch (singular noun) of grapes (plural noun)
The KJV correctly and consistently in context translates both as the singular noun
What are the alternatives?
Both nouns plural; "Gods created the heavens" (consistent but clearly wrong!)
One noun plural, one noun singular; "Gods created the heaven" (inconsistent and clearly wrong!)
One noun singular, one noun plural; "God created the heavens" (inconsistent, NKJV and MEV)
So, first round to the KJV
Secondly, Psalm 22:16, a significant prophecy of the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ
KJV; "… they pierced my hands and my feet."
NKJV; "They[a] pierced My hands and My feet;"
([a] So with some Heb. mss., LXX, Syr., Vg.; MT Like a lion instead of They pierced)
This comment [a] serves to make one unsure as to the accuracy of this text, especially as then refers on the LXX (Septuagint) the non-extant alleged Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures (cf. Hebrew Masoretic), and the Romanist Vulgate (really trustworthy, NOT!)
MEV; "like a lion they pin my hands and my feet;"
This translation effectively breaks an incredibly powerful prophecy of the nature of the crucifixion
Thirdly, Micah 5:2, another Old Testament Scripture but this time describing the eternal nature of the Lord Jesus Christ
KJV; "... whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
So, Jesus was "of old, from everlasting" that is ETERNAL
NKJV; "... Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting"
Yeah, here the NKJV gets it right!
MEV; "...His origins are from of old, From ancient days"
Sorry but "origins"?!
This implied He had an origin, a start
Also, "from ancient days" not from "everlasting"?
This latter version serves to change the eternal nature of the Lord Jesus Christ
Enough evidence so far?!
In the other thread, I stated how the KJV was one of the few to differentiate between second person singular and second person plural
Also, the KJV (and the line from which it came) is unique in correctly translating "Easter" in Acts 12:4
Just read one verse up and you realise that "then were the days of unleavened bread"
Now I know this is difficult for some to comprehend
Please note that I'm the first to admit this having left the Church of England which does not teach anything regarding the Jewish Feasts but Replacement Theology and is Romanist-light!
First is the ONE day of Passover, then this is followed by the SEVEN days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread
So, Passover had already occurred
King Herod intended "after Easter" to hand him over, that is after this one day
All modern 'Bibles' translate this as "Passover"
How can this be when the Passover had already occurred?
Are we talking about the following Passover, ie a year later?
The Greek word pascha can be translated as either passover OR Easter!
The pagan festival of Easter (which Herod as a pagan would more likely have worshipped) occurred around the same time as the Jewish feast of Passover
Yet again, the KJV is the perfect, inerrant, preserved word of God
It's really hard to find a mistake in the KJV (if you do then refer to the above statement)
Conversely it is really easy to find inconsistencies and mistakes in all the modern so-called 'Bible' (per-) versions which don't even agree with each other!
What I have found over the years is that people genuinely object to there being a perfect Bible, inerrant, to which we will all be judged.
For example, if all the KJV-only people suddenly had a change of heart and said, "you know what, you're right, the KJV is not the perfect word of God, now we believe the ESV is the perfect word of God".
All the objectors to the KJV would now move over to objecting to ESV-onlyism!
Whilst 'Bible' versions can be never ending in their subjective changes, updates and critiques, there will never be a perfect Bible, so you can all have your subjective view of the word of God
I could be wrong but I don't think that the NKJV and MEV are anyone's preferred versions here. If I am being charitable, I would say they are offering a olive branch to the people that follow the Textus Receptus/Byzantine/Majority Text positions.
In practice, however the premise seems based on a few points:
1 That you can't understand the KJV
2 You don't know that you don't know the KJV
3 If you refuse to accept a Critical Text, then you need to accept either the NKJV or MEV.
I have asked Thomas Nelson to provide the translation notes on their NKJV and they haven't responded. I read somewhere that the notes got burned up. I don't know if that is true or not.
The best thing to come out of all this warfare is the project at BibleHub: The Berean Standard Bible (BSB) and Majority Standard Bible (MSB). They are open with the copyright and it seems like there are no unnecessary changes. The Berean is based on the Critical texts, comes in like four versions (including an interlinear!) and is in print. While the Majority Standard is based on the majority of Greek manuscripts, it is online only (so far). The downside to the MSB is it might be a little bit more dynamic but less than the NIV. It is headed in the right direction.
There are other options but they are all kind of niche: I like Jay P. Green's translation. I like Ruth M. Davis' October Testament of the Matthew's Bible as well as the original. I do like the Geneva Bible but especially the notes.
Sadly, your *average* Christian is going to read one translation IF they read the Bible at all. Or the opposite problem of constantly comparing ten or twenty different translations. We need to consider the effects on the sheep. If you want something commonly available to read at church, the best single option remains the King James Bible.
1. The NKJV translates hashamayim as a plural word in Genesis 1.1 because it translates hashamayim as a plural word in Genesis 2.1, 4. The KJV translates it as a plural word in those verses, so it's the one being inconsistent. This inconsistency comes from the translators' odd desire to follow the Vulgate, which uses "caelum" in 1.1 and "caeli" in 2.1. It likely reflects a misunderstanding of the purpose of Genesis 1.1, assuming that it's the first event in a series of events rather than recognizing it as a summary statement of the subsequent chapter (which is then repeated in 2.1).
2. The MEV accurately reflects what the Masoretic Hebrew text says. As the NKJV's note indicates, the KJV drew on the precedent of earlier translations rather than attempting to make sense of the Hebrew text itself. Coverdale introduced the words "They pearsed my hondes and my fete" into English Bibles, and his translation was heavily dependent upon the Vulgate: "Foderunt manus meas et pedes meos." Wycliffe had instead used the word "delueden" (delved, in the older sense of "dug").
For an idea of what Protestants were thinking about this passage at the time, see Calvin's commentary on the verse: "The original word, which we have translated they have pierced, is כארי, caari, which literally rendered is, like a lion. As all the Hebrew Bibles at this day, without exception, have this reading, I would have had great hesitation in departing from a reading which they all support, were it not that the scope of the discourse compels me to do so, and were there not strong grounds for conjecturing that this passage has been fraudulently corrupted by the Jews. With respect to the Septuagint version, there is no doubt that the translators had read in the Hebrew text, כארו, caaru, that is the letter ו, vau, where there is now the letter י, yod."
3. The MEV's rendering of Micah 5.2 makes sense in the immediate context: a ruler of Israel will come forth whose lineage can be traced all the way back to King David from generations past. Compare Micah 7.20, where "the days of old" refers to the time of the Patriarchs. But in defense of the Christological "everlasting" meaning of the passage, you could appeal to Isaiah 51.9, where the same Hebrew words appear (KJV: "in the ancient days, in the generations of old") in reference to God defeating the ancient serpent Rahab in a primordial era.
4. "Pascha" cannot be translated as "Easter" unless you're using "Easter" as an archaic term for the Passover. In context, Luke is using the word "pascha" to refer to the entire Passover celebration, including the Feast of Unleavened Bread. It's possible that the KJV retained "Easter" here simply because Luke wasn't referring to a single day, but in 21st century English, it's very misleading. When people say "Easter" today, they're talking about the Christian holiday, not the Jewish one that inspired it. (And it's highly, highly unlikely that Herod would have been worshiping the Anglo-Saxon deity Ēostre. But even if he were, Luke wouldn't choose to call that pagan celebration "pascha".)
@@MAMoreno Very comprehensive reply thank you!
However, one could debate this endlessly to and fro, when do we accept the word of God as preserved and perfect?
@@murrydixon5221 so true!
Yes, most professing Christians don't read ANY Bible version, preferring to go down the emotional route, mystery Babylonian experiential 'Religion'.
It's difficult enough to talk about the absolute bare fundamentals of the faith of Christianity, what makes it different from all other works-based false Religions?!
The Gospel is sooooo clear; faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross, and this can only be true as Jesus is God!
@@MAMoreno So your argument is that they all have errors, or just the KJV is in error?
Logically, they all differ one from another so they cannot all be true
Is the NKJV is perfect word of God?
Or is the MEV the perfect word of God?
Or are we still looking for the perfect word of God?
I refuse to become my own authority on these matters
I empathise with people like you who have made themselves/their education/their opinions to be their final authority
What do you have to lose by placing your childlike faith in the word of God (Mark 10:15)?
King James the first wasn’t even a good King. Not that it matters but KJV only peeps almost worship the man. Here are a few facts about the King who the KJV is named after:
1. Probably a homosexual. Wrote a private letter to his best friend George Villiers and called George his “wife” and referred to himself as George’s father and husband.
2. James I's extravagant spending habits and poor financial management strained the royal treasury. He relied heavily on selling titles and monopolies, which led to corruption and discontent among his subjects. His financial policies were often seen as shortsighted and damaging to the economy.
3. James I believed in the divine right of kings, which led to frequent clashes with Parliament. He often bypassed or dissolved Parliament to assert his authority, leading to significant political tension and contributing to the broader conflicts between the monarchy and Parliament that eventually led to the English Civil War.
4. James I was known for his favoritism towards certain courtiers, such as George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham. This favoritism led to widespread corruption and resentment among other nobles and officials, damaging the effectiveness and reputation of his government.
5. Censorship and Control of the Press: James I exerted strict control over the press and censorship. He used the Star Chamber and other means to suppress dissent and control the distribution of information. This stifled free speech and limited public discourse.
6. : While James I initially seemed to tolerate Puritans, his attitude shifted over time, leading to increased persecution. He enforced conformity to the Anglican Church, which alienated and oppressed Puritan communities, contributing to tensions that would later culminate in the Great Migration to America.
7. James I’s personal behavior was often seen as unbecoming for a king. He was known for his drinking, crude manners, and favoritism towards handsome young men at court, which scandalized many of his contemporaries and undermined respect for his rule.
8. James I’s efforts to enforce religious uniformity deepened divisions within English society. His attempts to impose Anglican practices on Scotland led to significant resistance and unrest, foreshadowing the later conflicts during the reign of his son, Charles I.
So believe in the KJV if you want but don’t idolize such a poor man.
@GypsyFriend2 shame on you for your idolatry toward a despotic king that had Christian’s killed and called a man his wife! 😂😂😂
I never finished school I nearly made it to the 9th grade but I read the kjv for the first time at 22 and I could understand it perfectly. I had a older lady tell me she couldn't read it and she attended college so I was shocked. With that said. I have an open mind BUT with many, many research and reading both sides of the coin. All other translations demote the deity of Christ and obscure salvation. That is where my problem is. To each their own. I will trust the A.V with my life and follow the example of my past christian martyrs who died by the hands of the catholics quoting the A.V from their dying breath.
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified 7 times.”
KJV was put together by 47 scholars and took 7 years.
7 in the bible is the number of completion.
Go read Matthew 26:63-65 in the NIV and tell me again, "All other translations demote the deity of Christ." In that passage, Jesus directly claims deity and the high priest reacts by calling Jesus a blasphemer for no man can claim to be equal to God.
Romans 9:5 ...by physical descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, praised forever....
Titus 2:13 ...the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
John 1:18 ...The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side...
2 Peter 1:1 ...through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
John 14:14 ...If you ask *me* anything in my name, I will do it.
These are all taken from the 2020 CSB. Compare each one to the KJV. In each case, which one seems more watered-down regarding Jesus' deity?
The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on UA-cam for help reading the KJV! ua-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
@@hayfieldhermit9657 I share this to show how it seems to me at least.
Romans 9:5 ...by physical descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, praised forever....
- Christ is God come down to Earth in the form of man - pretty clear to me.
Titus 2:13 ...the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
- Jesus Christ is our great God and Savoir - pretty clear to me.
John 1:18 ...The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side...
- I grew up in a KJV only church and I always had trouble understanding the use of begotten to describe the uniqueness of Jesus as the one and only son of God and yet God himself. I do not use the CSB as a primary study Bible, but I have to say (for me anyway) that this translation of the verse makes the deity of Christ more clear than the KJV version of this verse. What could be clearer than “who is himself God.”
2 Peter 1:1 ...through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
- Jesus Christ is our “God and Savior.” To my reading, this is clearer than the “God and our Savior” of the KJV. I have no trouble understanding that each clearly shows the deity of Christ though.
John 14:14 ...If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.
- KJV - If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. - I fail to see any difference in meaning here.
@@samandkathyshelton4207 There's a textual variant in John 14:14. The Byzantine reading says "ask anything in my name" and the older papyrus reading is "ask me anything in my name".
To us it may seem the same, but the Jehovahs witnesses see a huge difference. They do not pray to or speak to Jesus. So in their bible they normally follow the critical text reading, but in this one verse they deviated from their base text and chose to use the Byzantine reading so that they didn't have Jesus saying that we can ask him....they want to obscure anything that might indicate that we can ask Jesus for things directly.
And then they really messed with the text when Stephen was be stoned. Stephen cries out to Jesus while he is dying, and he says "Lord" and asks him not to hold the sin against the people stoning him. Well, the Jehovahs witnesses changed Lord to Jehovah, so that it appears that Stephen stops speaking to Jesus, and is now speaking to the Father. But no manuscript in existence has the name of Jehovah in that verse. So the inclusion or lack of the extra "me" in John 14:14 can be significant regarding Jesus' deity if dealing with someone like a JW.
A video on a children's book? Well Well Well, you have finally found an opponent on your level! lol
I know, right?
The Westcott and Hort Greek text used with the modern versions is total garbage.
Don't play into any one's hands and say someone's text is total garbage. We want people to respect the Textus Receptus family and we need to do the same on our end. I would encourage you to start studying about why the KJV and the underlying Greek is a better text and use that to persuade our brothers here.
If something is total garbage, then there's nothing in it that's not garbage, right?
But the WH text is overwhelmingly identical to the TR text, with pretty much all analyses seeing less than a 10% disagreement between them. So wouldn't that imply that the TR is over 90% garbage?
This is the problem with irresponsible statements such as, "WH is total garbage."
You’re wrong buddy. See if your bible is mathematically perfect like the KJV. It ain’t “translated” by homosexual scholars either, like perversions such as the niv.
ua-cam.com/video/yS78mFJcvhQ/v-deo.htmlsi=KqkQJ4-WugCTOL79
Neither one of those claims is true, and Christians must be committed to speaking truth.
Carful you don't speak slanders and false witness against people by not verifying before speaking.
Gossip isn't evidence either
@@markwardonwordsVirginia Mollenkott was a textual consultant on the NIV. She is a lesbian and a feminist.
@@fordhughes I'm well aware of this. She went to Bob Jones University (decades before I did). And yet she did not translate the NIV. She also wasn't "out" at the time she worked as a literary consultant-a consultant whose influence on the text, if any, is impossible to discover. What specific passages did she alter? Does a sinful hand touching a Bible translation taint it beyond use? If so, how many sinful hands have touched Bible translations?
Look, you are just trying to sell a book.. We have to question some of these modern translations.. The KJV gives a reverence to Jah that modern translation doesn't..
The KJV usually follows the practice of replacing the Divine Name with LORD in all caps. If you are really hung up on this issue, wouldn't you prefer something like the American Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, or Legacy Standard Bible?
False piety flows from Mark like no other. Who makes a ministry solely against one Book? It's amazing how one Book bothers atheists and apostates together to the point they feel compelled to deride it. Mark's trust in the intents of the NKJV translators is based upon faith. Faith in man is dangerous UNLESS one has an agenda to promote one's narrative.
Hypocrisy. Sheer hypocrisy. The KJV was also translated by people, so you should apply your closing remark to yourself. Sauce for the goose.
Mark's ministry is against the KJV Only movement and its heterodox teachings, not against a venerable 400-year-old translation that can't help being archaic. The King James Bible isn't being "derided" for being in outdated English any more than the Wycliffe Bible is being "derided" for being in outdated English. That would be about as sensible as insulting John Milton for sounding less modern than Robert Frost. Stating a fact about Jacobean English is not stating a disdain for Jacobean English.
@@MAMorenoWell said! Encore!
What the heck?